Preventive detention is subject to strict scrutiny regarding procedural legality, including timely communication and justification for detention, especially when an individual is already in custody.

JUDGMENT :

[Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.]

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of all the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing and final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2. The Petitioner who is the original detenue has preferred this writ petition challenging the detention order dated 18.07.2024 bearing No.Dandapra/KAVI/MPDA/22/2024 passed by respondent No.2.

3. The facts leading for filing of the present petition can be summarized in brief is that on the date of detention order, the petitioner was already in judicial custody in connection with C.R. No. 140 of 2024, registered with M.I.D.C. Police Station, Jalgaon and continued to remand in such custody for many months thereafter. The order of detention though passed on 18.07.2024, was not served upon the petitioner immediately. The detention order came to be served upon the petitioner only after he was released on bail on 23.05.2025, that was nearly after 11 months later. The petitioner, therefore, raises a grievance that the authorities though fully aware about the petitioner is in jail, have failed to serve the order upon him in the jail and held back the said order till the moment, he came out of the custody, so that they can immediately take him back in the custody on the basis of the said preventive detention.

4. The pleadings in the writ petition and grounds mentioned therein raises several questions upon the illegality of the detention order. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner argued that the grounds of detention demonstrates that the detaining authority has relied upon two criminal cases, i.e. C.R. No. 140 of 2024 and C.R. No.127 of 2023, for the purpose of considering the preventive detention action against the petitioner. In addition to these two crimes, there are two in-camera statements which were also recorded and certain earlier instances have also been mentioned in the detention order in the grounds of detention while reaching substantive satisfaction. He also argued that one of the crimes that has been considered for the purpose of passing detention order is C.R. No.127 of 2023. He argued that the petitioner is neither an accused or witnessed nor even remotely connected with the said crime. He took us through the averment made in the affidavit in reply, while dealing with these contentions of the petitioner wherein the authorities have explained casually by saying that this is a typographical mistake and that the authority, in fact, have relied only on C.R. No. 140 of 2024 and upon the in-camera statements. According to the advocate for the petitioner, such explanation cannot cure the defect because the order itself shows reliance on that case as part of the foundation for preventive detention. He further contends that the two in-camera statements are absolutely vague and at the most relates to an isolated incidents which can be said to cause law and order situation and definitely it is not disclosed any disturbances of public order. He further argued that several documents including remand orders and other crucial papers were supplied to the petitioner in English language, though the authorities are well aware that the petitioner is a Marathi medium student and only understands Marathi. According to him, not supplying the translation frustrates the constitutional right of making an effective representation guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. The learned advocate also argued that the detention order stands vitiated on the ground of lo